Last week SF’s Board of Supes agreed on a process to select SF’s interim mayor. But that doesn’t stop everyone from endlessly speculating how things might go down when the Supes make their (nonbinding, since Gavin’s not expected to step down until Jan. 3) selection (scheduled for Dec 7). See? There are already questions, like which board of Supes, the current one or the one we’ll have in Jan, should do the picking. It’s fun to talk about! Let’s see what everyone’s been saying over the last few days:
Myths Surround the Interim Mayor Selection [BeyondChron]
Paul Hogarth wants to dispute what he calls two myths: First, that the Left needs to make an appointment NOW NOW NOW because the new Board is “more moderate” than the current Board. Second, that Board President David Chiu is somehow not a “real progressive.”
S.F. interim mayor pick starts with push of button [Chron]
“Picking San Francisco’s next mayor will have an element familiar to viewers of the game show Jeopardy, where the contestant who can reach the buzzer the fastest gets first crack at answering the question. The first supervisor to push a button to get his or her name on the electronic roster to speak can make the first nomination to replace Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is leaving to become lieutenant governor.” 1) Thanks so much for explaining Jeopardy to me, I was wondering what that noise was! 2) Wouldn’t “Family Feud” be a better comparison, you still get the buzzer thing plus the whole “feud” thing to explore 3) No word on if the nomination must be in the form of a question.
Supervisors’ ‘Clusterf*ck’ Mayoral Selection Process: What Comes Next? [Weekly]
“Some folks we talked to felt (the selection process) was all meaningless. Machinations would be worked out ahead of time, a name would be submitted, and the whole process would be over and done in Round One. Others weren’t so sure. The notion of the supes being organized and agreeable enough to pull out a one-round election may be far-fetched.” So it’s back room deal vs. bickering? Oh god I feel tired already.
Caretaker mayor concept blasted by Daly [SFBG]
“The idea behind a caretaker would be to choose a technocrat who would pledge not to run for reelection in the fall, thus keeping any prospective candidate from gaining an advantage from incumbency.” Supe Daly says, however, that “You would be putting someone in office who is necessarily weak and hamstrung.”
More opinions on replacing Newsom [Ex]
Chamber of Commerce President Steve Falk asks the Supes not to politicize the decision, then appears to politicize the decision.
What Comes Next For San Francisco Mayor — and David Chiu? [Weekly]
If the Supes can’t pick a mayor, Chiu becomes the interim mayor when Gavin resigns. So is he intentionally holding up the process so he can get the job by default, even for a little bit? He says he’s not.
Sheriff Michael Hennessey: history-maker on future [Chron]
Hennessey gets mentioned a lot as a possible interim mayor, but says he’d rather be sheriff (which is a way cooler job title). “But if the board is looking for someone who’s already been elected by the voters, well, I’ve received over a million votes for sheriff.” A bit of a mixed signal from the sheriff!
NYT, Peter Ragone predict drawn-out interim mayor selection [Ex]
Brent Begin raises an eyebrow as the New York Times, one of SF’s favorite publications to mock as being clueless (too many links!) about our city decides to consult SF’s favorite internet troll for “their analysis of the political intrigue surrounding the pick for San Francisco’s next mayor.” Did the Times ask John Nelson what he thought, too?
Want more news, sent to your inbox every day? Then how about subscribing to our email newsletter? Here’s why we think you should. Come on, give it a try.
